Disposed

Sri Byrappa v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/23633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought mutation of state land based on inheritance from an uncle. The Court held that mutation cannot be affected solely on a Will. It directed the petitioner to prove the Will's execution in a Civil Court before proceeding with mutation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prove execution of Will before competent Civil Court; Writ Petition disposed of reserving liberty.

Sri Byrappa Vs Government of Karnataka — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36296 WP No. 23633 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.23633 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

. SRI.BYRAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.71(SY NO.46) KAGGALIPURA COLONY KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.N.SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

THE TAHASILDHAR OFFICE OF TAHASILDHAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36296 WP No. 23633 of 2024

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING TO THE RESPONDENT TO CHANGE THE KHATA AND MUTATION IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AS PER OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking

¶22

mandamus against the respondents to change khata and

¶23

mutate the petitioner's name in the RTC pertaining to Sy. No.46 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas.

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶26

The subject matter of the petition land was

¶27

admittedly State property. The petitioner claims that his uncle by name B.K.Narayanaswamy applied for grant

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36296 WP No. 23633 of 2024

¶29

before the competent Authority and accordingly, the land in question is granted to his uncle. To substantiate that there is a grant, the petitioner is placing reliance on the RTC evidenced at Annexure - A and mutation certified pursuant to the grant under MR No.52/2004-05. The petitioner claims to have inherited the property left behind by B.K.Narayanaswamy, who expired on 16.08.2023. The petitioner being nearest legal heir appears to be submitted a representation annexing all the requisite documents to respondent No.2 - Tahasildar. The present petition is filed alleging that there is inaction on the part of respondent No.2 - Tahasildar in passing the orders on the representation dated 11.06.2024.

¶30

On reviewing the records, it is evident that the

¶31

petitioner is asserting that land in question is a dharkasth

¶32

land and it was granted to B.K.Narayanaswamy. The petitioner is asserting right based on the registered Will dated 09.04.2023.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:36296 WP No. 23633 of 2024

¶35

In the light of the Full Bench judgment

¶36

rendered in the case of C.N.NAGENDRA SINGH VS.

¶37

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS¹ , no mutation can be effected since petitioners claim is based on the Will alleged to have been executed by B.K.Narayanaswamy. The Full Bench in the judgment cited supra has held that mutations cannot be effected based on the Will. The petitioner primarily has to substantiate that there was a grant in favour of B.K.Narayanaswamy. Further, he has to substantiate that B.K.Narayanaswamy has made a testamentary arrangement and he has succeeded pursuant to the Will executed by his uncle B.K.Narayanaswamy.

¶38

All these disputed questions of facts cannot be

¶39

adjudicated in the mutation proceedings unless the petitioner is able to substantiate and prove due execution of the Will in the manner known to law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner needs to be

¶40

1 2002 ILR (Karnataka) 2750

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:36296 WP No. 23633 of 2024

¶43

relegated to substantiate and prove the Will before the competent Civil Court.

¶44

Reserving liberty to the petitioner, the writ

¶45

petition is disposed off.

¶46